Alleged false alerts of a drug dog may not be at all because the dog could have smelled residual odor of drugs from some other time. United States v. Manson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138590 (D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2023) (\u201cAs the Supreme Court noted in Harris, a false alert may mean simply that the dog \u2018smelled the residual odor of drugs previously in\u2019 the location and thus \u2018may not have made a mistake at all.\u2019 568 U.S. at 245-46.\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider denial of his motion to suppress can\u2019t simply reargue grounds already advanced and disposted of. United States v. Tsatenawa, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138547 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s claim that the search warrant for another person\u2019s house that he has no connection to would show potential outrageous governmental conduct as to him was too tenuous to even get discovery of the papers for that warrant. He was also detained on reasonable suspicion when he showed up there during the search. United States v. Collins, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138550 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Alleged false alerts of a drug dog may not be at all because the dog could have smelled residual odor of drugs from some other time. United States v. Manson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138590 (D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2023) … Continue reading